Non-Negotiable Cheques.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 March 1924, Page 4

Non-Negotiable Cheques.

(Mercantile Gazette.) The drawer of a cheque, wishing to po,*t il in payment of an account, wrote anoss its lace the words “nnii-ncgoti-al.le." He expected the receipt would lie returned to him in two or three days. but. ns it did not, he wrote asking the reason, and was surprised to fearn that the cheque had not been received. He discovered from his hanker that tile cheque find keen debited to I,is account: later on lie was informed that it had been paid in by a drapery 111-ill. who said they bad received it in tlu: oidiiuiiv course ol business, the ct,stonier having made some puieliases hi respect to which lie tendered the cheque, and as, it was drawn by a wcllknown person, they accepted it- in payment of their account. W hen it- was pointed out to them that the cheque had keen .stolen, and that it was marked “n.ou-negiAiable, ’ the manager remarked : “We noticed that the words •r.oii.negotiable’ were written across, but that did not Effort negotiability.

;i- Mi*‘ Bill, of Exchange Act icquues t]i■)i tile winds.shall In- written between tv,si parallel line;. This was not dune ; the drawer did nut complete the crossing. ninl the cheque ronuiined tin open one. payable to hearer, ami, as we know nothing about the tliell, and gave value, wo are |iroteeted. AY hat hap--11 tin) later does not eoneern us.” AY e are of opinion that the eonclu-don arrived at by the manager of the bus it less house which cashed the cheque n.idii nut be supported. It was drawn upon a bank and was a mandate to pay. rot cash over the eon liter, but only through another account. 11 the words i n the cheque wore sufficient to advise the bank of the intention of the drawer, then it would commit a breach of duty if those instructions were ignored. Our correspondent last week was evidently of opinion that because the wolds 'hion-uegotiable” were not written between two parallel lines, the leak should have paid cash over tile counter, but ill order to make a cheque win-negotiable all that is required is ihat the durwer.s intention to destroy negotiability is apparent on the face of the document, and his purpose is not defeated because ho has failed to technically comply literatim et verbatim w ; tk the Act. For instance, the section required two parallel lines, bin no sane person could contend that il the drawer bad marked lines which woic not parallel, inside of which ho laid written “non negotiable,’’ the cheque would have been non-uegotinble. and the same result would have occurred. had he written “rion-negoiiable in a triangle at the left-hand upper corner, or across the top of the cheque, or even beneath bis signature. So long as the words •‘noil-negotiable” appear plainly on the face of the cheque with nr without decoration, any person dealing with it does so at the risk of proving that the person from whom he has taken it had himself a good title. \ holder in due cour.se of a negotiable cheque relies upon his own possession, and is tinder no obligation to proto the title of those front whom it was obtained. AA'e think that the Act lays down a method of crossing which is sufficient, but does not declare that any other method is inlvalid. The words “lion-negotiable” must appear, and if the drawer has. by using them, manifested liis intention, then whether he adds the lines or not is immaterial. He nas conveyed to his banker an instruction that the cheque must be paid through an account; the same intimation is conveyed to every person into whose hands it may come, and we are suic no prudent person would be inclined to take the risk of paying out monev or giving goods to a stranger in exchange for a cheque on which was written the words “noil-negotiable.